 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by WW on November 21, 2002 at 04:11:45:
In Reply to: Re: Sorry Wolfgang... posted by Scott Eipper on November 16, 2002 at 04:06:56:
Hi Scott,
:I am interested to know which ones are fantasy and which are correct?
Much of this info is going to be under wraps until published, but I can give you a few ideas:
- The various splits of Pseudechis australis are fantasy - at the genetic level, this species is actually quite remarkably homogeneous - considering its distribution, it has by far the LEAST amount of genetic variation of any widespread species I have ever looked at, despite differences in size and colouration
- The two "Pailsus" are not in fact particularly closely related to each other - both "rossignolii" and "pailsi" are as closely related to P. australis as to each other.
- Generic classification in general - see the link below, nothing much has changed, except that "P. pailsi" is not particularly close to "P. rossignolii".
- Some of the Acanthophis are genetically identical, others are not.
This is not published yet - we are working on the paper. I hope you will understand that I don't really want to preempt the paper on kingsnake.com...
Cheers,
Wolfgang
